Rettracted customs confession and weak corroboration failed to justify interference with acquittal in appeal.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is illegal, perverse or wholly unreasonable, and the accused retains a double presumption of innocence. A retracted confession under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may require corroboration on the facts. The trial court found gaps in the prosecution case, including no independent panch witnesses, contradictions in customs officers' testimony, and failure to examine the officer who first intercepted the respondent as the proper officer under Section 77. The view that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was held to be plausible, so leave to appeal was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against an acquittal was warranted where the trial court had relied on the lack of corroboration to a retracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and had held that the prosecution failed to prove non-declaration before the proper officer.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and interference is justified only where the trial court's view is illegal, perverse, or wholly unreasonable. A retracted confession under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may require corroboration on the facts of a case. Here, the trial court found material gaps in the prosecution case, including the absence of the independent panch witnesses, contradictions in the testimony of the customs officers, and failure to examine the uniformed customs officer who first intercepted the respondent and would answer the description of the proper officer under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The view that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt was held to be plausible.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not call for interference and leave to appeal was rightly declined.

---